Having grown up during reaganomics.... I saw things get worse, not better.

It's been established that giving rich people more money does not mean they will spend it.
What did happen was the opposite... they got more money and they saved it because they knew the next administration would take some of it back.

I always think that its far better provide people with free or cheap services rather then handouts of money. Healthcare, childcare, education etcetera.
Mind you I was never for foodstamps, seem kind of demeaning, but thats just me.

"New research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests reasons why the richest should pay more tax; why rewarding the top performers leads to recurrent crises and scandals; and why we should resist the temptation to learn from and imitate the most successful."

Beginning over 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to go for it, to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.

Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started, a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women.

The days of everyone having a comfortable middle class life were over. America, from now on, would be run this way: The super-rich will make more, much much more, and the rest of you will scramble for the crumbs that are left.

* Everyone must work! Mom, Dad, the teenagers in the house! Dad, you work a second job! Kids, here's your latch-key! Your parents might be home in time to put you to bed.
* 50 million of you must go without health insurance! And health insurance companies: you go ahead and decide who you want to help or not.
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner.
* You want to go to college? No problem, just sign here and be in hock to a bank for the next 20 years!
* What's "a raise"? Get back to work and shut up!

Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars

But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.

That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms

When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.

But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."

"Regardless of the reason, Canadians truly believe that our social democracy-lite is fundamentally better than the man-bites-dog-Superpac-devours-man market democracy of the US.

And now, it seems it's also more profitable. It wasn't too long ago that Canada was being routinely denounced by US politicos as "Soviet Canuckistan", and held up as a frightful example of what the US would look like if liberalism were allowed to run amok. We haven't heard much of that since 2008. The triumph of the Canadian system over America's spelled out in the cold truth of dollar signs picks up where the war of 1812 left off. After 200 years of graceful acrimony, the Canadian standard has at last proven to be the superior of the two systems."

Canada's veered to the right of late, their environmental policy is shameful and they are heavily lobbying authorities over here. I really doubt you could describe it as very social-democratic, but sure what harm.
Canada has the advantage of high resource prices and a strong currency too, so its not surprising. But whatever about net worth, far more importantly, the Canadians have had a better standard of living even while they were "poorer", because their economy is fairer and better managed.

Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars

But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.

That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms

When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.

But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."

... Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started, a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women. ...

Click to expand...

It's interesting Reagan ran with the slogan, "Government is not the solution, but the problem." Our government, in theory, is a government of "We the People", so Reagan sold us that "We" are the problem. The plutocrats then took over, which led to our current state.

The financial deregulation by Congress started with Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. This is the time frame when the financial unregulated unfettered free markets con was bought by the country. The gamblers received the payout for their winning bets and the taxpayers paid the marker for the losses.

Think of this: despite taking office in the midst of a massive financial meltdown, Obama&#8217;s administration has not prosecuted a single heavy-hitter among those responsible for the financial crisis. To the contrary, he&#8217;s staffed his team with big bankers and their allies. Under the Bush-Obama bailouts the big financial institutions have feasted like pigs at the trough, with the six largest banks borrowing almost a half trillion dollars from uncle Ben Bernanke&#8217;s printing press. In 2013 the top four banks controlled more than 40 percent of the credit markets in the top 10 states&#8212;up by 10 percentage points from 2009 and roughly twice their share in 2000. Meantime, small banks, usually the ones serving Main Street businesses, have taken the hit along with the rest of us with more than 300 folding since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the industry-approved bill to &#8220;reform&#8221; the industry.

Yet past the occasional election-year bout of symbolic class warfare, the oligarchs have little to fear from an Obama victory.
.
.
.
In a sane world, one would expect Republicans to run against this consolidation of power, that has taxpayers propping up banks that invest vast amounts in backing the campaigns of the lawmakers who levy those taxes. The party would appeal to grassroots capitalists, investors, small banks and their customers who feel excluded from the Washington-sanctioned insiders' game. The popular appeal is there. The Tea Party, of course, began as a response against TARP.

Instead, the party nominated a Wall Street patrician, Mitt Romney, whose idea of populism seems to be donning a well-pressed pair of jeans and a work shirt.

Romney himself is so clueless as to be touting his strong fund-raising with big finance. His top contributors list reads something like a rogue&#8217;s gallery from the 2008 crash: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citicorp, and Barclays. If Obama&#8217;s Hollywood friends wanted to find a perfect candidate to play the role of out-of-touch-Wall Street grandee, they could do worse than casting Mitt.